# Robert Procup v. C. Strickland

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · July 2, 1986 · 792 F.2d 1069

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474958

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert PROCUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. STRICKLAND, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 2, 1986
- **Citations:** 792 F.2d 1069; 55 U.S.L.W. 2079; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26744
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Godbold, Roney, Tjoflat, Hill, Fay, Vance, Kravitch, Johnson, Hatchett, Anderson, Clark, Tuttle
- **Cited by:** 442 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474958

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that federal courts “have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions” and that “[c]onsiderable discretion necessarily is reposed in the district…
- holding that the district court’s injunction, restricting a prisoner from filing any case unless submitted by an attorney admitted to practice before the court, was over-broad but acknowledging that the district court had a responsibility to prevent litigants from unnecessaril…
- holding that an abusive litigant may be “severely restricted as to what he 28 USCA11 Case: 19-14353 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 29 of 33 may file and how he must behave in his applications for judicial relief. He just cannot be completely foreclosed from any access to the court”
- finding that although a court may not completely foreclose a litigant from access to the courts, "[t]he court has a responsibility to prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial machinery needed by others"
- finding district courts are given “considerable discretion” in deciding how to impose restrictions, and the only limitation on this power is that the litigants cannot be “completely foreclosed from any access to the court.”

## Opinion text

CLARK, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the majority opinion with one reservation. The opinion on pages 1072 and 1073 lists limitations and preconditions upon a person’s right of access to the court. Certain ones have been advanced by other courts and others are suggested anew by the opinion. By listing these limitations, the majority impliedly authorizes their use so long as they are not applied in a manner to deny access to the courts.
I construe the underlined portion of the following limitation as an unconstitutional denial of access and the right to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (d):
permittpng] abusive prisoner litigants to file in forma pauperis only claims alleging actual or threatened physical harm; and requiring payment of a filing fee to bring other claims;
In every other respect I agree with the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474958. Public record. Not legal advice.